>>>>http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/18/intel-wants-to-charge-50-to-unlock-stuff-your-cpu-can-already-d/
>>>
>>>How is this different from developing an application and then coding various levels of functionality which are sold at different level licenses e.g. basic, advanced, professional? I don’t see any issue here.
>>
>>Actually, I think this is nice for low-end buyers. It means they can "upgrade" their cpu without having to purchase a new one and pay for installation, lose time turning their pc into a shop to be upgraded or sending it back to the manufacturer to do so and hope they get their data back when it returns. Lower income folks can purchase the system with it locked and then later have it unlocked. It would be nice if they could actually start with a low-end chip and end up with a high-end chip actually (not just more threads and cache)...
>>
>>There are actually a lot folks out there who buy a new pc to upgrade their cpu to more cache too (MSFT OS sales). I'm surprised that MSFT isn't trying to stop this - it would reduce their sales...
>
>I don’t see the problem at all even after considering Al's and Dragan's further comments. I build an application, it contains all the functionality I want it to have. Then I cut it into 3 pieces by restricting access according to the license purchased. If you upgrade I send you a new license key. Cost to me = the price of an email = zero). You upgrade and get more functionality. No new install. No new hardware. No new software. You had it all along but now it's unlocked.
>
>I priced the different levels of access to my software as I felt it was worthwhile to me to sell and for you to buy. I create 3 markets (or whatever number) from beginner to advanced to professional. The fact that all it takes is a license key or the removal of a throttle-choke or some other equally minor soft or hard change is not realy the issue imho. The user buys the level of functionality they want / can afford.

Anybody remember the 386sx? A firmware upgrade would have been kind of cool.